I’ve recently become fascinated with the “blurbs” publishers or authors or whoever choose to put on their books from amongst the many reviews of their books. One that struck me as funny and not at all flattering was on the cover of the Ken Follett novel I’m reading at the moment. The New York Daily News called it “quick-paced.” Wow. When that is the type of praise your book is getting, you’ve got problems. Fortunately, Follett was able to redeem himself with other, better books. Somehow I don’t think Reid will get another shot.

Anyway, here’s Hemingway on the reception/review of Reids memoir:

Every other major media outlet has been standoffish. Take this blurb from the Washington Post, proudly emblazoned on the back of the paperback edition: â€œRecounts fights with everyone from classmates to the man who would eventually become his father-in-law, preparing him for a senatorial life of battling the Bush White House and Republican filibusters.â€ Beware the value-neutral blurb: In fact, the Post never reviewed the book â€” the quote comes from a gossip column published a month before the bookâ€™s release. One of the most powerful men in Washington published a book, and the entire journalistic establishmentâ€™s reaction seems to have been, â€œIf you canâ€™t say something nice . . . â€

So he’s been a belligerent cuss from day one, eh? Does that really surprise anybody?

A couple of years ago, Reid gave a speech at BYU as a part of one of their forums. Ostensibly, it was to appease all the haters who thought BYU was being partisan by having Vice President Dick “Darth Vader” Cheney give a talk at commencement (President Bush couldn’t make it).

VP Cheney didn’t say a single thing that could have been construed as partisan. Whereas Senator Reid, given his turn, made a complete fool of himself by giving what amounted to one of his usual senatorial rants against President Bush, Evangelical Christians, etc. He was his usual, classy self.

The best example (or worst) of Reid’s classiness from his memoir is pointed out, per usual, by DrewM @ Ace:

While no one expects Reid to praise George W. Bush, the degree to which he is judgmental and catty regarding the former president pretty much speaks for itself. Three pages in, after lamely trying to establish his bipartisan bona fides by talking up George H. W. Bush, Reid shares this charming anecdote about his early days in the Senate: â€œ[Former Texas senator and vice-presidential candidate Lloyd] Bentsen went on and on effusively about what a quality man President-elect [H. W.] Bush was. Then he paused and said, â€˜But watch out for his wife; sheâ€™s a [witch].â€™ I have never had anything against Mrs. Bush, but guided by Bentsenâ€™s crude advice, Iâ€™ve always said that our forty-third president is more his mother than his dad.â€

Whatâ€™s the purpose of recording for posterity a bit of hearsay defaming a woman Reid admits he has no cause to dislike? Is Reid really so petty as to insult someoneâ€™s mother? Why yes, yes he is.

On the one hand, I’m extremely put off by Reid’s antics. On the other, I’m incredibly amused by the damage he and his partner in crime, Nancy Pelosi, do to their party. It’s a commentary on the party leadership as a whole that these two are the leaders of the Democrat party in Congress.

I’m told there are more Democrats in the military now than ever. But Blackfive doesn’t think the party is relevant:

I don’t think the fact that the party of the President really matters in discussions on whether the troops like him or not. That said. The current president has a lot of deeds to make happen in order to overcome his words:

Matt & I agree, Saturday was the best of the three days of CPAC. And that’s how it should be: Good conferences ought to build, day to day, with the final day and the final speech being the best of all. Given that Rush Limbaugh gave a great final address, I’d say mission accomplished. For the text of that speech, click here.

For most of the day, we sat dead-center, about 20 rows back from the front.

The first speech we heard was Bill Bennett’s. He was President Reagan’s Secretary of Education and is the author of the Book of Virtues. He was reasonable and insistent on not calling Obama’s policies socialist. He said they are from the extreme liberal left wing and that they were bad, but that they weren’t socialist. Fair enough.

On education, he said it is important that we teach children American history–that we teach them to be patriotic. Of course, I agree with all of this.

Ann Coulter is the funniest woman I have ever heard. She could be a straight stand-up comedian. She is all the more enjoyable because she skewers liberals. Sure, lots of what she says is inflammatory. But it’s no worse, indeed, much less offensive, than what many on the left do to those on the right. She doesn’t, for instance, use four letter words. Ace has got preliminary video of Coulter’s speech.

Incidentally, it is one of my disappointments that I did not get to meet Mr. Ace O’Spades. There’s always next CPAC.

The afternoon had panels on education reform (read: more choice–also a pet interest of ours), energy policy, and culture/Hollywood. Robert Davi, of Goonies & James Bond fame, participated in the latter panel and was fantastic. We also enjoyed an Irish couple who presented on their film which decries the human cost of global warming hysteria.

So, yeah, we came away optimistic, enthusiastic, having made a few more friends & contacts, have learned a little more about a few more issues, and with an improved vision of what we can and ought to do as conservatives in America.

Sorry for the dearth of posts over the last week. I’ve been traveling (NYC) and will be traveling some more this week. I’ll be in DC for a little research and a whole lotta CPAC.

For those who don’t know, CPAC is the big, yearly, conservative get-together. I’m going to try and blog it the way I did the RNC, as there will be lots and lots of good conservative speakers. If you’re in the area and plan to attend, shoot me an email and we’ll meet-up. I’m hoping for a little face-time with Mitt and my blogger-hero, Mr. Ace O’Spades.

Atheists spend a lot of time thinking about the motives for belief. Why do religious people believe these ridiculous things? When you turn the tables on atheists and ask them why they don’t believe, they will answer, “Because we don’t have enough evidence. We don’t believe because there’s no proof.” But if you think about it, this is an inadequate explanation, because if you truly believe that there is no proof for God, then you’re not going to bother with the matter. You’re just going to live your life as if God isn’t there.

I don’t believe in unicorns, so I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You’ll notice that I haven’t written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion, and I don’t spend my time obsessing about unicorns. What I’m getting at is that you have these people out there who don’t believe that God exists, but who are actively attempting to eliminate religion from society, setting up atheist video shows, and having atheist conferences. There has to be more going on here than mere unbelief.

If you really look at the motivations of contemporary atheists, you’ll find that they don’t even really reject Christian theology. It’s not as if the atheist objects to the resurrection or the parting of the sea; rather, it is Christian morality to which atheists object, particularly Christian moral prohibitions in the area of sex. The atheist looks at all of Christianity’s “thou shalt nots”â€”homosexuality is bad; divorce is bad; adultery is bad; premarital sex is badâ€”and then looks at his own life and says, “If these things are really bad, then I’m a bad guy. But I’m not a bad guy; I’m a great guy. I must thus reinterpret or (preferably) abolish all of these accusatory teachings that are putting me in a bad light.”

I would say more that Evangelical Atheists’ zeal for fresh converts is due to their reductivist and juvenile thinking, wishing to reduce most of human evil to one underlying cause, religion. Take away religion and we live in a utopia.

I rather doubt that. I think the fault lies with us and not in the stars, or the god beyond the stars. People do all sorts of bad things and they hardly need religion as their motivation for doing so.

My experience with atheists in the academy (not as many as you might think) pretty well reflects D’Souza & Ace’s.

That, and they always hate when you point out that the “great” atheist movements of the 20th century–Soviet Russia (specifically Stalin), Hitler’s Germany, Communist China, the Khmer Rouge (really, I could go on)–have killed millions more than the reductivist-ly-argued, religion-motivated deaths of any or all centuries.

Take away religion–specifically, Christianity/Judaism–and the morality taught by these religions and the world becomes a pretty sucky place–do unto others, before they do unto you.

Now that I’m back in London, I expect to be blogging more regularly, owing, of course, to the normalization of my schedule and whatnot.

Given that today is my first day back and I’m still unpacking and recovering from the effects of jet-lag (much worse going forward than back), this one will be short and really, just an appeal for all y’all to go and vote for Ace of Spades HQ as the Best Conservative blog. It’s easy and it’s true.

Found out about this from Ace (who else?) and Hot Air. I have to assume that this bit of info about “don’t ask, don’t tell” comes from the same poll, but I’m not 100% certain and don’t want to take the time to do the research to confirm.

Anyway, the gist of it is this: 10% of active-duty troops have said they would not re-enlist if the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” were stopped. That is, if gays were allowed to be openly gay in the military, 10% of the troops would look for work elsewhere.

Most active-duty service members continue to oppose President-elect Barack Obamaâ€™s campaign pledge to end the â€œdonâ€™t ask, donâ€™t tellâ€ policy to allow gays to serve openly in the military, a Military Times survey shows.

Moreover, if the policy was repealed, nearly 10 percent of respondents said they would not re-enlist or extend their service, and 14 percent said they would consider terminating their careers after serving their obligated tours.

Why is this significant? Because Obama’s press secretary has promised to kill “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

A great many progressive liberals find fault with this policy and they desire a military that embraces people’s various sexual lifestyles in an open, respectful way. Unfortunately, a great many progressive liberals have absolutely no desire to serve in the military — whether don’t ask, don’t tell is the law or not — which means that the military will continue recruiting from a population which does not share the enlightened, humane, pro-homosexuality goo-goo of the progressive liberals.

Don’t ask, don’t tell makes military service less attractive to gays and progressive liberals. But they, largely, are not inclined to serve in any event. Repealing the code makes service less attractive to traditionalists and, yes, conservatives (as well as blacks and Hispanics) who tend to be liberal on many issues but not particularly progressive about homosexuality) who actually are inclined to serve.

One can argue about the fairness but those actually willing to join the club ought to have some say in its rules. Those unwilling to join should have far less a say.

If Gleen Grenwald and other humane, compassionate, forward-thinking liberals announce their intention to sign up in great enough numbers to offset the losses among the current cohort of recruits, fine, we can dispense with the issue of how this policy affects the military’s actual purpose — to fight and win wars. And then we can have the debate solely on the grounds the liberals wish to have it on, on the questions of fairness and dignity and openness to diverse sexual orientations. And other gay [stuff] of this nature.

But somehow I doubt that any such large-scale pledge to serve will be forthcoming.

Me too.

13 January 3:44pm BST: Matt P. weighs in with an angle that hadn’t occurred to me:

The one thing that hit me right away about this is that repealing don’t ask don’t tell is just one more way for BHO to reduce defense spending. Not only that, he could point to the decrease in spending being a result of “natural” attrition and possibly not have to pay as much of a political consequence because, “People just aren’t willing to sign up like they used to.”

I read an article awhile back on the Op-Ed page of the WSJ in which the author argued for Keynesian-style spending on the military. At least, he said, if you’re going to spend huge amounts of money, you might as well spend it on things that are useful rather than just making stuff up like, “green jobs.” He specifically outlined increasing the military budget to pay for big ticket items–new jet fighters, expensive parts for destroyers and carriers and other things along those lines.

Though the whole Keynesian approach doesn’t appeal to me the way it does to (apparently) Obama, I could at least support spending large amounts of money of military modernization projects & recruiting.

I’m afraid, however, that Matt P. is right and the military won’t be getting a dime. More “green” jobs!

I’ve kind of neglected this feature over the last few months. Not for lack of material, but for lack of interest. Even when Reid said or did something ridiculous (on a fairly regular basis), I just couldn’t seem to find the motivation to post anything about it.

Given that he’s now saying outrageous things about Iraq, like, he had anything at all to do with the success there, I couldn’t help myself.

This is the spin that we all knew was coming. Indeed, we’ve already seen it a dozen times, but not from Harry “The War is Lost, the Surge Has Failed” Reid. The claim, of course, is that by arguing for surrender and defeat, the liberal defeatists were actually arguing for a change in strategy that would result in victory.

Bear in mind, this is especially galling coming from him, as he did not merely say the war is lost. He also was a prime opponent of the surge, arguing it could never work. And then, when the surge began, he said it was doomed. And then, even when it succeeded, he declared the surge a failure.

And now that the surge is so obviously a victory that even he can’t deny it, he says You’re welcome. I did that.

Whatever else you may believe about Iraq, the myth that Democrats had anything whatsoever to do with the positive outcome, ought not enter into the realm of the remotely possible.

And that’s one of the great disappointments: They could have been constructive. They could have worked with people like John McCain, who called for something approximating The Surge at least 2 years ahead of The Surge.

But they didn’t. They played politics with the war, called it “lost,” accused our troops of all sorts of bad things–terrorizing women and kids, for instance–and on and on. Now that things are hunky dory, they–Harry Reid in the forefront–want to take credit for the very thing, against which, they actively worked.

Hamas Declares “Day of Wrath:” The Day of Wrath will join the other days of the Hamas week, Day of Vengeance, Day of Massacre, Day of Murder, Day of Senseless Bloodletting, Day of Explosively-Expressed Grievances, and of course Day of Intense Cultural Inferiority Complex and Extreme Sexual Confusion which Leads to Outbursts of Psychopathic Violence.

srael is on heightened security alert today after Hamas declared a “day of wrath” after the killing of a senior Hamas leader in Gaza.

Thousands of security personnel were on alert after the Islamists called for “massive marches” after the main weekly Muslim prayers, starting off from the Al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem and from all other mosques in the West Bank.

Witnesses said that violent scenes had been reported in east Jerusalem, with protesters throwing rocks at soldiers. Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said that thousands of extra officers had been deployed to deal with the ongoing clashes.

You know who gets my sympathy & wrath? The Palestinian people get my sympathy. For the most part, they do not deserve to be ruled by a bunch of Iran-proxy, terrorist thugs. Hamas and the people who put them in power (some of the former) get my wrath.

Israel is doing about what you would expect of any country who has received over 3000 rocket/mortar attacks in the last year and, you know, believes strongly in self-preservation.